Original researchConcurrent validity of the ActiGraph GT3X+ and activPAL for assessing sedentary behaviour in 2–3-year-old children under free-living conditions
Section snippets
Practical implications
- •
The estimation of SB using ActiGraph cut-points may still include a significant error when compared to activPAL estimations in 2–3-year-olds.
- •
Estimates of SB calculated with 48 counts/15 s or 5counts/5 s cut-points are the most similar with the estimates provided by activPAL in 2–3-year-olds.
- •
In 2–3-year-olds, use other ActiGraph cut-points than 48 counts/15 s or 5counts/5 s to compare estimates of SB provided by actiPAL should be avoided.
Methods
Participant data were collected as part of the Get-Up! Study.21 Data for the present report was gathered at follow up (2017) in 60 healthy 2–3-year-olds (50% boys) aged 22 to 42 months. Of the 242 young children observed on the follow-up data collection, 33 were not compliant with wearing one or both devices and 149 had less than two hours of monitoring for both devices simultaneously, and were therefore, excluded from the current analyses.
The Get-Up! Study was approved by the University of
Results
Descriptive characteristics of the young participating are presented in (supplementary material - Table S2). Thirty boys and 30 girls were included. The majority of the sample was normal weight (93%). Regarding wear time, 2–3year-olds wore both devices, on average, for 4.1 h ± 1.2 h (range = 2.3 h–7.0 h).
The 95% Limits of agreement and respective Bland and Altman pots can be seen on Fig. 1.
Estimates of SB according to the different ActiGraph cut-points were not within the activPAL ±10% (Fig. 2)
Discussion
Although none of the hip-mounted ActiGraph cut-points used to define SB in 2–3-year-olds were equivalent to activPAL siting time, estimates of SB derived from the 48counts/15 s7 and 5counts/5 s8 cut-points overlapped the equivalence region and provided estimates with the smallest mean bias (∼5%). While the cut-points of 25counts/15 s, 37counts/15 s and 181counts/15 s also provided estimates of SB that overlapped the equivalence region derived from activPAL estimates, the mean bias from these
Conclusion
None of the ActiGraph hip-mounted cut-points provided estimates of SB in 2–3-year-olds that were equivalent to estimates of sitting time from the activPAL; however, estimates from the points slightly greater than (the best cut-point that underestimated) or slightly smaller than (the best cut-point that overestimated) are expected to provide group-level estimates of SB in 2–3-year-olds that are similar to estimates of sitting from the activPAL. Nevertheless, even the most accurate cut-point
Acknowledgements
João R. Pereira and Eduarda Sousa-Sá are supported by PhD scholarships from University of Wollongong. Zhiguang Zhang is supported by a PhD scholarship from China Scholarship Council. Rute Santos had a Discover Early Career Research Award from the Australian Research Council (DE150101921). No specific sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.
References (29)
- et al.
Calibration and validation of the ActiGraph GT3X+ in 2-3 year olds
J Sci Med Sport
(2014) - et al.
Validation of thigh-based accelerometer estimates of postural allocation in 5–12 year-olds
J Sci Med Sport
(2017) - et al.
Using accelerometers to measure physical activity in large-scale epidemiological studies: issues and challenges
Br J Sports Med
(2014) - et al.
Prolonged sitting: is it a distinct coronary heart disease risk factor?
Curr Opin Cardiol
(2011) - et al.
Utilization and harmonization of adult accelerometry data: review and expert consensus
Med Sci Sports Exerc
(2015) - et al.
Validity, practical utility, and reliability of the activPAL in preschool children
Med Sci Sports Exerc
(2012) - et al.
Feasibility and validity of accelerometer measurements to assess physical activity in toddlers
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
(2011) - et al.
Qualitative feasibility of using three accelerometers with 2-3-year-old children and both parents
Res Q Exerc Sport
(2013) - et al.
Identification and validity of accelerometer cut-points for toddlers
Obesity (Silver Spring)
(2012) - et al.
Development of actigraph GT1M accelerometer cut-points for young children aged 12–36 months
J Athl Enhanc
(2016)
Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children
J Sports Sci
Validation and calibration of an accelerometer in preschool children
Obesity (Silver Spring)
An objective method for measurement of sedentary behavior in 3- to 4-year olds
Obes Res
Calibration and comparison of accelerometer cut points in preschool children
Int J Pediatr Obes
Cited by (5)
Longitudinal associations of sedentary time and physical activity duration and patterns with cognitive development in early childhood
2020, Mental Health and Physical ActivityCitation Excerpt :Specifically, the sample size in this study was small and though the objective measures were a strength they did not allow for interpretation of the types of behaviours children engaged in. In addition, the use of accelerometers in this age group may have led to measurement errors, as they are unable to collect postural information and isolated upper body activities (Pereira, Sousa-Sá, Zhang, Cliff, & Santos, 2020). Future longitudinal research needs to include the use of posture-based devices, larger sample sizes and combine objective and subjective measures to understand whether certain behaviours are characterized by specific patterns (e.g., prolonged versus sporadic movements, types of behaviours).
Systematic review of accelerometer-based methods for 24-h physical behavior assessment in young children (0–5 years old)
2022, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical ActivityReliability Study of Inertial Sensors LIS2DH12 Compared to ActiGraph GT9X: Based on Free Code
2022, Journal of Personalized MedicineImplications and Recommendations for Equivalence Testing in Measures of Movement Behaviors: A Scoping Review
2021, Journal for the Measurement of Physical BehaviourObjectively Measured Sedentary Levels and Bouts by Day Type in Australian Young Children
2021, Journal of Physical Activity and Health